WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.810 Umm, turning off the chat, I think you've that's already no. 00:00:06.900 --> 00:00:09.520 Uh, yeah, the transcripts going OK, that's perfect. OK. 00:00:10.580 --> 00:00:12.030 OK. 00:00:12.860 --> 00:00:13.690 Greetings everyone. 00:00:18.560 --> 00:00:18.710 Yeah. 00:00:22.210 --> 00:00:24.330 Ohh I'm gonna still have more ohk. 00:00:24.340 --> 00:00:24.860 OK. 00:00:25.370 --> 00:00:41.260 Hi everyone I wanna thank you for attending the department stakeholder meetings for the extended producer responsibility program for packaging uh just to explain the camera situation, the we could not get the cameras in the room out of sleep mode. 00:00:41.270 --> 00:00:49.110 So we have a an impromptu camera set up over there, so I apologize for that, but you don't get the better picture of the room. 00:00:50.100 --> 00:00:55.940 I am Brian Beneski, the head of the Department Sustainability Unit, and I will be handling technical issues of the meeting. 00:00:57.130 --> 00:00:59.540 I would also like to introduce Elena Bertocci. 00:00:59.610 --> 00:01:06.640 Jessica Nadeau they are with the Stustainability unit and the staff in charge of implementing the EPR for packaging program. 00:01:06.710 --> 00:01:11.040 Jim Gurrera, who's also with our staff, will also be here today. 00:01:12.370 --> 00:01:24.950 They will be acting as the moderators for this meeting, although we had several meetings now there are, there's still maybe some technical bumps that arise and I ask for everyone's patience when those happen, such as our camera situation. 00:01:26.670 --> 00:01:30.350 These meetings are part of the stakeholder process initiated by the department. 00:01:31.340 --> 00:01:35.260 This is the opening meeting regarding the topic of producer payments and reporting. 00:01:36.100 --> 00:01:43.060 An opening meeting is to provide a chance for stakeholders for event comments and allow all the stakeholders to review each other's comment. 00:01:43.480 --> 00:01:56.550 The second meeting, which is scheduled for July 25th, provides an opportunity for the stakeholders to ask questions of each other regarding the various positions presented and made available on these topics to the programs web page. 00:01:57.160 --> 00:02:02.120 We will make sure that everyone who wishes to make a statement or ask a question will get a chance to do so. 00:02:03.160 --> 00:02:09.350 I'd like to add that this meeting is being recorded and that the recording should be made available within the next week or so. 00:02:09.680 --> 00:02:18.550 Additionally, a transcript will also be made of this meeting and that will be available with any additional comments received through link on the programs web page. 00:02:18.560 --> 00:02:32.800 Site information from all the comments submitted and these discussions will be used as the basis for drafting rules that will be submitted to the Board Environmental Protection as part of the formal rulemaking process and December of 23. 00:02:36.430 --> 00:02:37.080 Comments. 00:02:37.130 --> 00:02:39.690 submittal is not limited to attendees of this meeting. 00:02:39.750 --> 00:02:44.490 The department will accept all comments for consideration submitted in writing. 00:02:45.320 --> 00:02:52.330 Additionally, new or additional comments can be presented at any time through the EPR for packaging email address found on our website. 00:02:53.650 --> 00:03:18.340 We currently have approximately 6 people here in person and 47 who are viewing us right now and people are popping up as we speak as this is both an in person and virtual meeting, we asked that those who wish to speak raise their hand and hold your statements until moderator recognizes you to allow us time to mic you. 00:03:18.550 --> 00:03:19.950 So everyone hears your questions. 00:03:20.770 --> 00:03:24.380 You do not have to be attending in person to ask questions or make a statement. 00:03:24.390 --> 00:03:26.020 Just use the raise hand feature. 00:03:26.630 --> 00:03:29.100 I will now hand the meeting over to Elena and Jessica. 00:03:30.860 --> 00:03:39.230 OK, so we have a few folks who have signed up to share comments and in no particular order. 00:03:39.320 --> 00:03:46.150 I'll just start asking that those comments get shared. 00:03:46.240 --> 00:03:50.580 That's right, after a comment is shared, we'll open up the floor for clarifying questions. 00:03:51.860 --> 00:03:55.030 Umm, but exclusively clarifying questions. 00:03:55.540 --> 00:04:00.840 And then once all of those have been addressed, then we'll move on to the next stakeholder. 00:04:03.460 --> 00:04:03.710 No. 00:04:05.830 --> 00:04:06.890 Do you think that would? 00:04:07.480 --> 00:04:13.680 Is there anybody who would like to share their comment first, whether that be online or in person? 00:04:15.840 --> 00:04:23.500 We don't have to go in any particular order, but we could very well start with Andy was a request already made, so we'll go ahead and OK, great. 00:04:23.510 --> 00:04:23.950 Yeah. 00:04:24.640 --> 00:04:30.340 I will make Andy a presenter, I think Andy. 00:04:44.750 --> 00:04:45.310 Can you hear me OK? 00:04:45.100 --> 00:04:48.110 But yes, even though it looks. 00:04:47.800 --> 00:04:49.530 OK, victory. 00:04:50.030 --> 00:04:59.290 Andy Hackman, on behalf of AMERIPEN, and appreciate the department scheduling the meeting to talk about producer payments. 00:04:59.300 --> 00:05:07.110 I feel like we've talked about this topic a lot as it intersects with reimbursement formulas and other aspects of the law. 00:05:07.120 --> 00:05:09.950 So appreciate that this is an important topic. 00:05:10.700 --> 00:05:18.110 I think one of the things to underscore is right now we don't have a firm estimate of what the entire program is going to cost. 00:05:18.120 --> 00:05:21.540 I think we've heard anywhere from 20 to $30 million. 00:05:22.410 --> 00:05:37.070 I think there are estimates that are potentially higher than that, so I would encourage the department to, as they develop the regulatory structure in this area to not be incredibly prescriptive. 00:05:37.280 --> 00:06:07.200 This is gonna have to be worked out with the stewardship organization that DEP selects and obviously the the budgetary requirements and initial estimates because initially I think we are going to have to rely on estimates in order to begin the collection of funding in order to to have producers equivalently fund not just the reimbursements but also the investments in infrastructure that we've talked about that will exist outside of reimbursement. 00:06:07.930 --> 00:06:19.500 So bottom line is is I think that the the SO is going to need a decent degree of flexibility in establishing the producer payment schedule. 00:06:19.790 --> 00:06:21.040 And that's just confident. 00:06:20.240 --> 00:06:22.870 Andy, can we just ask you to pause? 00:06:22.950 --> 00:06:23.910 I'm so sorry. 00:06:23.880 --> 00:06:24.510 Sure. Yeah. 00:06:24.360 --> 00:06:34.020 We're just having a little bit of trouble getting clear audio in them in the room at, so we're just gonna check in with one another and then we'll ask that you resume. 00:06:34.030 --> 00:06:37.810 But just complement that Andy's no matter our Internet, that's no good. 00:06:38.380 --> 00:06:39.330 Other people could hear it. 00:06:39.340 --> 00:06:40.450 Maybe they give a thumbs up. 00:06:40.800 --> 00:06:41.210 Yeah. 00:06:42.370 --> 00:06:42.510 Yeah. 00:06:41.220 --> 00:06:45.560 How is the virtual world indeed loud and clear? 00:06:48.680 --> 00:06:49.530 Yeah, they are. 00:06:49.750 --> 00:06:50.250 They are. 00:06:50.260 --> 00:06:51.010 They just don't. 00:06:51.120 --> 00:06:52.630 I do think it is our Internet. 00:06:52.640 --> 00:06:56.750 We were getting a little bit of, we were getting a notice before the meeting started. 00:06:57.080 --> 00:07:07.800 We could try to turn off the webcam and see if that allows for clearer audio, but I don't think it's anything I can do like with the hardwires that will make anything better. 00:07:07.810 --> 00:07:09.470 You turn on hardware, do right. 00:07:13.980 --> 00:07:16.400 Yeah, your your video was kind of going in and out. 00:07:16.170 --> 00:07:16.630 Yeah. 00:07:16.670 --> 00:07:18.240 OK, you better. 00:07:19.050 --> 00:07:20.070 Alright, go ahead and resume. 00:07:20.080 --> 00:07:20.670 Alright, thanks. 00:07:20.680 --> 00:07:21.240 Sorry Andy. 00:07:21.250 --> 00:07:21.760 Thanks Andy. 00:07:22.640 --> 00:07:23.450 Yeah, no problem. 00:07:24.100 --> 00:07:24.730 How about now? 00:07:24.740 --> 00:07:26.880 Can you guys hear me any better now that we've got no video? 00:07:26.800 --> 00:07:29.520 Yes, I think it's better, much better. 00:07:30.290 --> 00:07:31.340 OK, good. 00:07:31.390 --> 00:07:31.760 All right. 00:07:31.770 --> 00:07:45.200 Well, my, my my first initial point just to kind of summarize is we encourage the regulatory structure that's developed around producer fees to provide that flexibility that's going to be needed. 00:07:45.850 --> 00:07:59.270 I would expect that there will be decent amount of dialogue between the SO and the department, given the fact that the SO is a contractor to the department about needs and adjustments to the producers. 00:07:59.840 --> 00:08:01.330 Funding and fee schedule. 00:08:02.180 --> 00:08:31.830 So I think that and it's underlying core, I don't think the regulatory structure should spell out that you know producers at a certain level need to pay you know X dollars per ton that's going to believe have to be developed in an iterative process between cost that folks are seeing in the system and materials and everything that are used by different producers specific to the to the background documents. 00:08:32.340 --> 00:08:59.620 There was discussion around or questions around flat fee for those low volume producers and a question with regards to tiering, those based upon volume that seems to be appropriate and reflective of the intention given the fact that the threshold is defined at a particular tonnage and there'll be some producers that that are in different ranges in that in that funding. 00:08:59.950 --> 00:09:08.280 Now there was a question about whether or not there should be tiers within the flat fee structure. 00:09:08.290 --> 00:09:15.150 For what's considered right of the recyclable and not, I think as it comes up later in the background document, there are. 00:09:16.550 --> 00:09:31.470 Challenges in probably getting that data from low volume producers, as one would expect low volume producers or more likely to be small or medium sized companies that don't have significant data on their distribution in Maine. 00:09:31.730 --> 00:09:46.050 And so if there is an attempt to sort of bifurcate or create tiers of fees for those low volume producers based upon materials being ready, recyclable or not, we understand the desire to move folks to more readily recyclable materials. 00:09:46.720 --> 00:10:03.490 But it may be very difficult from the from that sector of companies to get data that's quantifiable and and or at least even estimates that are appropriate and relevant to to create predictable tiers in that space. 00:10:04.240 --> 00:10:13.850 And one of the the aspects from the background document and talking about base payments, it talks about the cost of managing the material. 00:10:13.900 --> 00:10:26.980 Only a point that we've raised and earlier comments is that there is likely to be and and hopefully there is because there is demand created in the system for recycled content revenue. 00:10:26.990 --> 00:10:33.790 That's that's created from these materials and we do believe that that needs to at least continue to be factored in. 00:10:33.800 --> 00:10:38.100 I think we'd had previous discussions around that when we talked about the reimbursement rates. 00:10:38.810 --> 00:10:52.740 Uh, but the the same application is necessary to be cognizant of that revenue from a particular material as we structure the baseline or the base payments for for those producers. 00:10:53.400 --> 00:11:04.960 And in terms of there was a a question in the background document relevant to administrative costs and whether or not those should be equal amongst each producer. 00:11:05.090 --> 00:11:27.810 So administrative cost for the so administrative cost for DEP, which are obviously capped in statute, unless there is a particular requirement from a producer or a subset of producers that that requires that the SO expend additional administrative time on that sector. 00:11:27.900 --> 00:11:38.350 We do believe that that the administrative payments should be equal across those producers that are participating in the stewardship organization. 00:11:38.360 --> 00:12:16.180 Now, if there is a structure whereby maybe not an explicit alternative collection program that exists outside of the SO, but if the SO is committing particular resources towards infrastructure or towards managing data for a particular subset of producers that are using a very unique material, and that administrative burden is higher based upon that aspect of their packaging or their product type or their packaging type, then perhaps it warrants sort of a additional administrative fee to those that subset of producers. 00:12:16.190 --> 00:12:39.850 But assuming all things are equal, we believe the administrative cost should be shared equally among those producers that are in in the so, umm, in terms of discussion in the background document around incentive to incentives being structured as penalties, it was that was a harder concept for me to wrap my mind around. 00:12:39.860 --> 00:12:42.360 But I I think I understand where the department is coming from. 00:12:43.400 --> 00:13:02.500 There may become a situation where all materials that are in the system may be well in the future are are net positive, meaning that material generates revenue versus being simply a cost. 00:13:03.090 --> 00:13:17.130 So we would envision a scenario in that case where the incentive may not be a lower penalty and that's how I tried to conceptually understand what I understood or tried to read from the departments document. 00:13:17.140 --> 00:13:25.920 And I know we're not supposed to have a dialogue in this opening meeting around that, but and maybe you wanna ask me a question about it that can help clarify. 00:13:25.930 --> 00:13:35.920 I don't know, however, so I do believe at some point in the future there there is, I think, in all of our desires. 00:13:35.930 --> 00:13:48.840 Hope that the materials that are being recycled are a net positive and generating revenue in the system and in that situation incentives versus just penalties might be more appropriate. 00:13:49.560 --> 00:13:52.910 And there was a question in the background. 00:13:52.920 --> 00:13:56.710 Documents around reporting for low volume producers. 00:13:57.320 --> 00:13:57.770 Sort of. 00:13:57.780 --> 00:13:58.500 See above. 00:13:59.270 --> 00:14:09.540 You know the the the, the more requirements that you put on those producers for low volume, the greater ability there will be to perhaps create bifurcations in that flat fee system. 00:14:10.090 --> 00:14:17.640 But I think in the big picture of things, low volume is is is meant to be low volume right. 00:14:17.650 --> 00:14:27.490 And and to the extent you put grade data requirements on those low volume producers, you're either not likely to get a whole lot of of good data back. 00:14:27.850 --> 00:14:49.460 And so I do think it may be the blunter of the fee structures within that flat fee system and where obviously I think there's expectation that that folks that are above a low volume threshold will potentially have greater data and the SO will be able to provide greater data to them. 00:14:50.220 --> 00:15:00.020 And there were, uh questions in the background document relative to estimates and the ability to use estimates or how estimates should be used. 00:15:00.370 --> 00:15:15.760 And in particularly, as we all know, EPR is just getting started and four states right now, Colorado's probably the farthest ahead in terms of selecting a PRO organization and beginning this process. 00:15:15.990 --> 00:15:33.310 But I think particularly early in the initial steps of of establishing the SO, selecting the SO, estimates are going to be needed particularly for our market being different than a market that's more central in the country. 00:15:33.670 --> 00:15:44.690 Colorado's probably again another good example where there's, you know, significant amounts of distribution that occur through a state like Colorado, where you're more likely to perhaps have have data. 00:15:46.270 --> 00:15:54.090 You know, we are a market that is is more akin to Canada at times than it is akin to to Colorado or Illinois or Ohio. 00:15:55.420 --> 00:16:11.310 So I think in that sense estimates will particularly be important, understand and take the point sort of in the questions in the background document that that's got the potential for over or underreporting certain materials. 00:16:12.300 --> 00:16:16.970 But it is and other states allowed for, for example, new jerseys. 00:16:16.980 --> 00:16:22.170 Recycled content law does allow for national estimates. 00:16:22.180 --> 00:16:47.420 If there's not New Jersey specific data and based upon the fact that once the product leaves a producers own warehouse, they may not know you know the exact mix of where that product is sold, I'm sure this is a comment that that may be echoed by others or has been made numerous times in the legislative arena and on other regulatory issues. 00:16:47.430 --> 00:17:02.400 But when it comes to that scenario, there is a significant lack of transparency at times between the producer that's going to be interfacing with the stewardship organization and what's actually sold on our shelves and here in Maine. 00:17:03.070 --> 00:17:13.760 So we do feel like those estimates will be accurate in the sense that they will certainly represent our population in general distribution of products. 00:17:14.270 --> 00:17:36.960 Certainly the producers will understand the materials that they are using and work with the SO on that, but the exact number of units sold in Maine that are made of HDPE or mixed paper or paperboard, those might be more challenging to get at a individualized unit type of of quantification. 00:17:38.110 --> 00:17:42.370 So yes, we do think estimates are are are going to be critical. 00:17:43.260 --> 00:17:43.660 Umm. 00:17:43.940 --> 00:18:15.950 And then in terms of sort of the final theme and the the background documents around timing and how the sort of chicken and the egg issue is addressed around startup costs, administrative costs prior to actual information flowing to the so around reimbursement it some of it made depend on bluntly which SO is is selected in the RFP process. 00:18:15.960 --> 00:18:29.800 We are aware of the fact that the PRO that's been selected in Colorado has initial startup funding that has been provided by producers that that is certainly one of the reasons why that organization was selected. 00:18:29.960 --> 00:18:37.620 We understand is that they have some of that weight and ability to to have startup costs accounted for. 00:18:37.630 --> 00:19:03.980 So, and that's something that is probably gonna have to exist within the relationship, the membership agreement and the contracts that exist between the SO and the producers in terms of any potential overpayment of initial startup costs that might have to be discounted at later point in time based upon the producers obligation and the system once the entire structure is set up. 00:19:04.950 --> 00:19:33.400 So not sure there's a way that that can be stipulated and regulation other than perhaps through the RFP process asking for the SO to clearly indicate how startup costs might be, might be funded from producers in their their bid for for application and how you know those types of startup costs would be discounted if there's overpayment as the the program begins operating. 00:19:33.460 --> 00:20:01.200 So I think I've worked through largely most of the the background questions that we were ready to comment on today, but appreciate that this is a topic that is of a lot of interest obviously to AMERIPEN Members and others and and hope that we have a dynamic system that is created so that the so can work with the department and informing them on how producer payments are are, are structured and done. 00:20:01.210 --> 00:20:02.060 So in a fairway. 00:20:04.220 --> 00:20:04.780 Thank you, Andy. 00:20:04.840 --> 00:20:10.990 Hey, you've gotta have questions. 00:20:11.000 --> 00:20:12.190 Still have a question for you know? 00:20:13.200 --> 00:20:13.830 Yeah. 00:20:13.880 --> 00:20:17.530 Christopher Bresee. 00:20:17.540 --> 00:20:21.220 You've got your your hand up, so I'm gonna make you a presenter. 00:20:24.140 --> 00:20:26.170 And keep Andy as a presenter. 00:20:31.780 --> 00:20:32.870 Bresee, apologies. 00:20:32.880 --> 00:20:33.850 That was a mistake in hand. 00:20:33.860 --> 00:20:36.510 Raise from earlier, umm, that that didn't. 00:20:36.520 --> 00:20:37.060 I'm sorry about that. 00:20:35.450 --> 00:20:38.600 Oh Nope, no worries. 00:20:38.680 --> 00:20:38.980 Thank you. 00:20:41.570 --> 00:20:41.880 Yeah. 00:20:41.890 --> 00:20:43.600 So we have a clarifying question for you. 00:20:43.610 --> 00:20:45.650 In house the the on the timing. 00:20:48.170 --> 00:21:01.860 I understand what you're saying about so the SO has its costs from the very beginning, and it might be most appropriate for the SO to work out with producers. 00:21:01.870 --> 00:21:05.370 How it funds itself at the very beginning. 00:21:05.440 --> 00:21:15.370 What about if that six month required funding hits before the program really has the ability to charge producers correctly? 00:21:17.300 --> 00:21:18.270 You mean the six month? 00:21:17.470 --> 00:21:23.190 So so that there needs to be the producers have everyone has to be paying within six months. 00:21:23.860 --> 00:21:24.080 Yeah. 00:21:25.090 --> 00:21:28.390 Umm, I think that will probably. 00:21:29.870 --> 00:21:32.550 Again depend on which SO is selected if, if. 00:21:32.600 --> 00:21:38.890 If it's an SO that's already operating in another state, I know the fees need to be specific to Maine, right? 00:21:39.240 --> 00:21:41.200 So I'm trying to think about how that could operate. 00:21:55.040 --> 00:21:55.410 Right. 00:21:42.500 --> 00:21:55.590 So you're suggesting that perhaps there may need to be an initial base payment that's stipulated for each producer in order to to sort of fulfill the obligation of the statute, if I understand the question right. 00:21:55.420 --> 00:21:56.030 I mean, maybe. 00:21:56.040 --> 00:21:57.530 Yeah, I guess yes. 00:21:57.680 --> 00:22:03.580 And by base payment, an additional initial payment of some kind. 00:22:03.590 --> 00:22:05.790 I mean uh. 00:22:04.350 --> 00:22:06.470 Umm yeah. 00:22:06.540 --> 00:22:23.510 I don't know what that you know, I don't know how to other than to stipulate that maybe in the RFP that there's an estimate made uh by the so for what an initial administrative cost would be that that that's information that's needed to be provided to the department. 00:22:23.520 --> 00:22:26.600 I think that might be the easiest way to get a sense of what that would be. 00:22:26.890 --> 00:22:46.530 If you said we need to put this in regulation, we need to say every producer owes $5000 or every producer owns a, you know, at certain level owes $100,000 for that first initial six month period and then it could be discounted, though I feel like those are just gonna be guesses at this point. 00:22:47.310 --> 00:22:47.850 Umm. 00:22:48.140 --> 00:22:56.650 And so I think the the way to get enough clarity on that would be in the RFP process. 00:22:56.720 --> 00:23:05.530 The SO clearly articulates how they are collecting or how they would collect if they're awarded the contract. 00:23:06.520 --> 00:23:33.460 The initial administration fees to collect their initial administrative costs, and they might be able to say we have 1400 producers that are currently participating in the SO organization and you know we are initially going to charge them $5000 for administrative costs in order to facilitate you know our hopefully successful bid to the state of Maine, uh. 00:23:34.160 --> 00:23:42.140 And that information could be the clarity that you might need to select them. 00:23:42.830 --> 00:23:59.060 Uh, I think setting sort of that initial fee in regulation is eventually obviously just gonna be sort of a, you know, archival reference and regulation because you move into actual implementation of the program. 00:23:59.070 --> 00:24:31.490 So I don't think it's necessary to be in, in, in the regulation if if the RFP is drafted in a way that that gets the information that's necessary and it also gets into in regulation trying to stipulate what the payback might be to our producer, if it if there's an overpayment where I think that can get worked out where it made quite frankly, if it if there's an overpaid, I doubt there's going to be an overpayment probably, you know an initial phase until we start getting some data. 00:24:31.530 --> 00:24:41.970 So uh, it it's something that I believe the SO should be able to work out and articulate that both in in their annual plans. 00:24:41.980 --> 00:24:48.050 So that stakeholders can understand it and in there what I would expect would be regular dialogue with the department. 00:24:52.340 --> 00:24:57.530 And and you mentioned in the estimates you mentioned New Jersey allowing for national estimates. 00:24:57.540 --> 00:25:02.150 Is that where you just referencing for example, they allow for estimates? 00:25:02.160 --> 00:25:09.700 Or were you suggesting that that a national estimate is the appropriate same to you? 00:25:10.810 --> 00:25:16.810 And so the way in in that statute, there's preference towards New Jersey specific data. 00:25:17.000 --> 00:25:27.520 But if it's not available for a producer, they can use estimates and I think the same approach would be reasonable and I think most producers the better data they have. 00:25:28.440 --> 00:25:33.380 You know, we're not a big market and and for some folks especially, we're not a big market. 00:25:33.510 --> 00:25:34.210 You know they. 00:25:34.500 --> 00:25:40.330 Yeah, having better data for producers is as an incentive. 00:25:40.370 --> 00:25:45.760 There's an incentive to having better data because I think estimates might increase your fees. 00:25:45.770 --> 00:26:03.430 Quite frankly, if you if you know that your market is smaller in Maine, then on what it is on average nationally, if you're, you know based in Illinois and distributing your product nationally, you know having better data is going to you know mean specific data. 00:26:03.520 --> 00:26:11.310 Is it going to probably help you reduce a burden if you're not now, if you're headquartered in New Hampshire, that might be a different occasion. 00:26:11.320 --> 00:26:20.770 But you know there is there is in New Jersey and the recycled content law preference towards New Jersey data. 00:26:21.200 --> 00:26:25.670 If it's not available, producers can use estimates, and I think that would be reasonable. 00:26:27.120 --> 00:26:44.140 But, but any New Hampshire, a company based in New Hampshire, today, if they were to use national data and to then, you know, divide their total sales by, they would probably be grossly underestimating the amount of potentially material sent into Maine. 00:26:45.510 --> 00:26:52.990 And I mean and that gets to free riders in the system or subsidizing in the system, which is always going to be a challenge. 00:26:53.970 --> 00:27:01.730 In in this this whole program is is 1 producer subsidizing another as a material, subsidizing another. 00:27:01.740 --> 00:27:08.640 That's a fight that's gonna, you know, an issue that's going to continue to, to have to be managed as best as possible. 00:27:08.970 --> 00:27:17.740 The only way I think you could could do that could try to discourage an incentive for our local companies and just use national data. 00:27:17.930 --> 00:27:32.830 But then it looks like you're discriminating based upon geography, so I would suggest that the regulatory code uh needs to to be geographically neutral and applying this. 00:27:33.260 --> 00:27:43.900 The only other way to do that would be to requires some sort of statement from a producer that that says you know we don't have Maine specific data. 00:27:43.910 --> 00:27:47.560 That's why we're using national data as an estimate. 00:27:47.570 --> 00:28:00.140 And here's the reason why, again, I'm not sure how you you put a hook in regulatory code that distance that you know. 00:28:00.150 --> 00:28:17.430 If you're, if you're going to allow estimates which the statute allows for, uh, you know if since that's the case, I don't know how you can effectually in the regulatory code prevent that scenario. 00:28:17.440 --> 00:28:20.610 If folks are, you know, you could put something on good faith. 00:28:20.720 --> 00:28:29.700 You know, producers are expected to make a good faith effort towards providing Maine specific data for compliance purposes. 00:28:29.710 --> 00:28:40.060 With this Charter, that would certainly, you know, provide clear direction to producers that we're looking for Maine specific data. 00:28:40.070 --> 00:28:47.690 The SO is looking for Maine specific data, but I don't know how you mandate it when estimates are allowed in statute. 00:28:48.800 --> 00:28:49.330 Mm-hmm. 00:28:50.140 --> 00:29:00.070 And and then I guess, sorry, another thing you mentioned was that, umm you you sort of said especially at the beginning you said that a couple of times especially at the beginning. 00:29:00.120 --> 00:29:14.010 Is there a time period after which, like so maybe initially we accept national estimates no problem, and then after, I don't know, three years, five years, we say, you know what? 00:29:14.020 --> 00:29:35.470 If you're gonna give us the national estimate, we're gonna ask you to increase it 10% because we want to make sure that you know that this isn't being underestimated due to geographical variation or whatever, and we want to incentivize the actual is that, umm, is there a time period after you which you feel like that might be appropriate? 00:29:36.570 --> 00:29:47.120 I I think five years feels relevant just because the number that feels like, you know, folks generally plan for infrastructure investments around a 5 year period. 00:29:47.800 --> 00:29:56.200 Umm, I don't know if you could put into regulatory code if you don't provide Maine specific estimates after a particular period of time. 00:29:57.130 --> 00:30:03.420 Uh, that you increase your volume by 10% because that's it. 00:30:03.430 --> 00:30:10.700 That's not linked necessarily to, you know, your market may actually shrink and Maine, you know, those types of factors. 00:30:10.750 --> 00:30:13.990 I don't think you could put an escalation clause like consumer price index. 00:30:15.130 --> 00:30:27.570 Uh, you know it it especially as there are some competing sorcery reduction goals and aspects to things nationally right now and and potentially under the performance goals here. 00:30:29.530 --> 00:30:42.340 So I don't think you can put in a regulatory code and sort of that automatic escalation if we were just talking a variable that's based on the consumer price index, you know, maybe you could think about that. 00:30:42.350 --> 00:30:54.890 But we're talking about volume of product sold and you may be flat, you know or you may be down, especially if you if we dip into a recession and any of these years that coincide with with any particular threshold. 00:30:55.690 --> 00:30:59.320 Umm, you know, an automatic escalation clause? 00:30:59.330 --> 00:31:00.820 I don't think would be appropriate. 00:31:00.830 --> 00:31:06.640 I think 5 years where you know it, it is more lenient on using national estimates. 00:31:07.570 --> 00:31:15.250 Umm, it might be an appropriate period, especially as you think about where we sit in relation to startup times and other states. 00:31:15.780 --> 00:31:29.680 You know data is going to be obviously a big factor in how how folks are complying and you know where we sit in the pack is is in contingent with where the other states sit. 00:31:29.690 --> 00:31:49.800 So we'll have better data, I think five years feels like appropriate time to to perhaps require producers to to justify if that's, you know, the case that justify to the department or to the well the SO first right, you know why they're only providing national data or national estimates. 00:31:51.350 --> 00:31:53.530 Umm, OK, thank you. 00:31:54.660 --> 00:31:55.410 I'm gonna. 00:31:55.420 --> 00:31:58.880 Tony Smith has a hand up, so I'm gonna make you a presenter. 00:32:08.580 --> 00:32:09.110 Hello. 00:32:09.120 --> 00:32:09.710 Good afternoon. 00:32:11.020 --> 00:32:11.440 Umm. 00:32:13.080 --> 00:32:17.270 Maybe I missed something through prior meetings. 00:32:25.680 --> 00:32:26.670 Not only is that a is. 00:32:17.880 --> 00:32:28.890 Do we have a magical master list of what we're calling producers that affect the state of Maine and he's used as an example? 00:32:29.320 --> 00:32:30.830 And Andy cracked me. 00:32:30.840 --> 00:32:42.980 If I'm wrong, let's say this SO says that they've identified 14,000 producers in Maine and they're going to ask them to front X numbers of dollars per each for admin costs. 00:32:43.460 --> 00:32:46.330 Do we know what those who those producers are? 00:32:47.950 --> 00:32:49.400 How many who they are? 00:32:49.410 --> 00:32:54.750 Where they're located, either Maine, New England, the country, but more particularly in the state of Maine. 00:32:55.550 --> 00:32:56.020 Umm. 00:32:56.670 --> 00:33:03.440 Or is that so and maybe this is a two way sword or or a cat chasing his tail? 00:33:04.130 --> 00:33:15.930 Is yes, so obligated to identify the producers in the state of Maine, but they're gonna need financing to be able to do that, to pay the staff to pay the costs along those lines. 00:33:15.940 --> 00:33:32.600 So I'm assuming there's no snap your fingers get a list of all the producers in that affect the state of Maine from wherever, so that that's that's well, whether the SO using and's example. 00:33:32.610 --> 00:33:35.960 Again, let's say that they weren't even gonna consider doing that. 00:33:35.970 --> 00:33:38.970 Is there a list of the producers that affect the state of Maine somewhere? 00:33:46.640 --> 00:33:46.880 Yep. 00:33:41.680 --> 00:33:47.970 I'll maybe offer and it sounds like that's maybe Tony a question for me and for the department that I don't know. 00:33:48.680 --> 00:34:05.460 But I will say that so the only benchmarks we have right now are the Canadian EPR programs that have existing producer lists than those, you know, those organizations that markets probably going to be quite different than the US. 00:34:10.110 --> 00:34:10.420 So. 00:34:05.470 --> 00:34:11.660 So I don't think we've got a good list of the number of producers that was sending, but. 00:34:18.600 --> 00:34:18.780 Yeah. 00:34:10.430 --> 00:34:23.150 So what's going to be the process to to to identify the if it is the SO, they're gonna have to be paid somehow to hire people to do that, so that that's something that would have to be OK. 00:34:24.430 --> 00:34:26.220 Yeah, I think that's gonna have to figure out. 00:34:26.230 --> 00:34:28.360 Tony, you raise it a good point. 00:34:28.370 --> 00:34:31.570 Now just offer this the SO is gonna have incentive. 00:34:52.880 --> 00:34:53.140 Right. 00:34:32.300 --> 00:34:55.150 Umm, assuming that producers are connected to it is gonna have incentive, I mean, regardless, right now I think the SO is gonna have incentive in finding as many folks that are selling product in Maine that are in covered packaging materials as possible because otherwise there is a potential for free riders in the system. 00:34:55.160 --> 00:35:01.640 You actually jogged my memory that I didn't mention as I went through the background documents that I should have commented on is there. 00:35:01.650 --> 00:35:10.280 Obviously we when we talked about in our first meeting back in December, there are exemptions in the statute and and the potential for additional exemptions. 00:35:11.120 --> 00:35:40.310 We think it is very important that, uh, there was a clear discounting of whatever, you know, volumes there are for things that the legislature chose to exempt or if the department provides additional exemptions, if those are ending up in the in the curbside recycling or or in consumer recycling streams, and there are exempted products, but they're getting recycled, you know, there shouldn't be reimbursement for that. 00:35:40.320 --> 00:35:47.970 So we think it's important that that the producer fees reflect what's covered and what is covered. 00:35:48.650 --> 00:35:52.900 Umm, by the membership of the SO and thus you know. 00:35:53.810 --> 00:36:00.100 Uh, I mean we're, we're the law is essentially creating a monopoly by only choosing 1. 00:36:00.110 --> 00:36:05.990 SO organization, so there is inherent interest in that SO and ensuring that they. 00:36:06.630 --> 00:36:15.970 Understand everybody that's selling and is covered because if not, there is the potential for that volume of material to be paid for by somebody else. 00:36:16.190 --> 00:36:16.740 OK, good. 00:36:16.750 --> 00:36:21.830 So I I can boil my my question down quite to to a small thing. 00:36:21.920 --> 00:36:23.470 There's no list of producers. 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:53.490 The SO is going to have to identify those producers, so there has to be a mechanism in place whether it's up front, money from the state domain or from somewhere to get them up and get get them on their feet up and running and then phase out that quote, lack of a better word, subsidy to the SO because I'm assuming it's a for profit, which is wonderful because they'll be more inclined to to go ahead. 00:36:52.490 --> 00:36:53.710 Hey, not for pride. 00:36:53.720 --> 00:36:56.230 No, it's gotta be nonprofit done to the statute. 00:36:57.140 --> 00:36:57.960 No, no. 00:36:57.760 --> 00:36:58.890 No, not Maine. 00:36:59.220 --> 00:37:00.780 Other places Andy not in Maine. 00:36:59.230 --> 00:37:01.140 All right, you're right. 00:37:01.340 --> 00:37:01.850 Sorry. 00:37:02.040 --> 00:37:02.670 Yep, you. 00:37:02.290 --> 00:37:03.230 Wow, that's awesome. 00:37:03.120 --> 00:37:04.550 Nice to I stand corrected. 00:37:05.350 --> 00:37:05.710 Thank you. 00:37:08.580 --> 00:37:09.590 Not often you were. 00:37:09.600 --> 00:37:09.960 You were. 00:37:08.340 --> 00:37:13.960 But it's it's at the end of the day, the in the the compliance is is a department responsibility. 00:37:14.720 --> 00:37:15.190 Umm. 00:37:15.540 --> 00:37:19.660 But you know, there'll be if it is a, it is a heavy lift. 00:37:19.670 --> 00:37:21.980 Your right, Tony, to get people signed up right away. 00:37:32.240 --> 00:37:32.400 Yeah. 00:37:21.990 --> 00:37:44.960 And I think Andy pointed to the fact that you're gonna have going to be aware of of who's signed up in other jurisdictions to a certain extent that can help part of the reporting is gonna be with UPC code so that you're gonna be able to clearly see what is umm been registered and what's not been registered and then department outreach. 00:37:45.020 --> 00:37:46.230 You know, we're working on that. 00:37:46.240 --> 00:37:50.400 How to get in touch with producers to let them know that they need to? 00:37:50.570 --> 00:37:52.840 You know, I think there's probably a lot, you know, they need to. 00:37:50.720 --> 00:37:57.730 Yeah, but but remember day one, when that SO turns the key and opens their office door, they need some income. 00:37:57.740 --> 00:38:00.460 They need some a revenue stream coming in to pay their bills. 00:38:00.960 --> 00:38:02.590 So that's just food for thought. 00:38:02.600 --> 00:38:07.980 Down the road, we can't solve it right now, but they one they're gonna need some revenue coming in. 00:38:10.160 --> 00:38:10.450 Yeah. 00:38:10.140 --> 00:38:10.460 And I. 00:38:10.460 --> 00:38:11.520 Thank you, Tony. 00:38:14.550 --> 00:38:14.790 Sorry. 00:38:14.800 --> 00:38:15.240 Go ahead, Andy. 00:38:16.050 --> 00:38:16.530 With those. 00:38:15.910 --> 00:38:21.560 No, I was just gonna say I kind of referenced that in in my comments relative to it. 00:38:28.380 --> 00:38:28.810 Ohh. 00:38:31.820 --> 00:38:31.960 Yes. 00:38:21.800 --> 00:38:45.290 Depending upon the SO that is selected through the RFP process, you know they're they're the RFP process could could create preference for organizations that are already have, you know, existing to your point Tony membership lists and extensive coverage in the industry and you know startup cost cover so. 00:38:42.260 --> 00:38:45.750 Yes, that's that note. 00:38:45.760 --> 00:38:46.700 I did take down. 00:38:46.710 --> 00:38:47.350 You're correct. 00:38:47.360 --> 00:38:56.140 So will the RFP request a an outline of from a perspective? 00:38:56.150 --> 00:39:02.250 SO do they have funding sources that they can tap on day one? 00:39:07.710 --> 00:39:08.510 I think that's probably. 00:39:08.070 --> 00:39:08.720 Or should it? 00:39:08.910 --> 00:39:09.570 Or should it? 00:39:11.360 --> 00:39:12.750 Should they be required to? 00:39:12.760 --> 00:39:15.720 To to include that to give them the edge up. 00:39:17.210 --> 00:39:17.640 I know what? 00:39:16.990 --> 00:39:18.770 I think that's what Andy suggesting, correct? 00:39:19.550 --> 00:39:20.350 Is that what you said? 00:39:19.340 --> 00:39:22.410 Yeah, I think I've suggested that I don't think the department can answer that. 00:39:22.760 --> 00:39:24.340 Yes, I don't know. 00:39:26.570 --> 00:39:27.440 OK, let's leave it. 00:39:27.450 --> 00:39:28.780 I'll leave it as a suggestion. 00:39:26.710 --> 00:39:29.340 I think no, I don't think we can do that. 00:39:29.350 --> 00:39:31.010 But we'll take any suggestions. 00:39:31.900 --> 00:39:34.520 It it will be a comment that we make if that helps. 00:39:35.280 --> 00:39:35.560 OK. 00:39:35.020 --> 00:39:35.650 Yeah. 00:39:35.710 --> 00:39:37.830 Thanks Andy and folks. 00:39:39.280 --> 00:39:39.550 Thanks. 00:39:39.560 --> 00:39:40.320 Thank you. 00:39:42.240 --> 00:39:44.940 I'm trying to get back fired up into the EPR mode. 00:39:44.950 --> 00:39:49.780 We've had quite a hiatus and that that that's get back in the groove. 00:39:49.830 --> 00:39:50.210 Thank you. 00:39:51.140 --> 00:39:51.540 Thanks, Tony. 00:39:52.760 --> 00:39:53.200 Thanks. 00:39:54.640 --> 00:39:56.040 Anyone else have any? 00:39:56.050 --> 00:39:56.290 Uh. 00:39:58.230 --> 00:39:59.890 Clarifying questions for Andy. 00:40:00.360 --> 00:40:01.230 OK, sure. 00:40:01.360 --> 00:40:02.510 No, they can't see me, right? 00:40:02.590 --> 00:40:03.050 Right. 00:40:03.100 --> 00:40:03.510 OK. 00:40:03.560 --> 00:40:04.090 Hi everybody. 00:40:04.100 --> 00:40:05.530 I'm Sarah Nichols from NRCM. 00:40:05.540 --> 00:40:08.570 Hi, Andy, hear me. 00:40:09.240 --> 00:40:10.050 Yeah, I can hear you. 00:40:10.320 --> 00:40:10.790 Can you hear me? 00:40:10.850 --> 00:40:24.720 Umm yeah, I guess my question is about what you just clarifying what you were saying about revenue generated from the sale of the materials and how that might impact the producer fees. 00:40:24.730 --> 00:40:40.180 I guess because I guess in my mind I pictured, you know the the municipalities would be getting reimbursed their you know their net cost of the municipalities are earning the they're, they're the ones earning the revenue off of this material and they would only need to be reimbursed what's leftover if you know. 00:40:40.860 --> 00:40:48.470 So to me that would be kind of baked in, but I was curious if that like you were describing it differently, I don't know. 00:40:48.520 --> 00:40:51.020 How did you picture the revenue in there? 00:40:49.150 --> 00:40:52.060 Well, well, well. 00:41:01.940 --> 00:41:02.170 Mm-hmm. 00:40:52.650 --> 00:41:05.930 The the background document doesn't suggest net cost because net cost would be inclusive of revenue derived from that material if it the the the reimbursement formula. 00:41:06.000 --> 00:41:14.450 So far that we've that we've reviewed and the background documents talk about pure cost, uh, not net cost. 00:41:14.460 --> 00:41:22.070 So if we're in agreement that that is net cost after revenue has been subtracted, I think we would be in agreement on that. 00:41:22.550 --> 00:41:23.820 That's the point I was trying to make. 00:41:23.890 --> 00:41:24.290 OK. 00:41:25.260 --> 00:41:43.240 So if if if a material is constantly not deriving revenue for a municipality and Umm is is it a negative value to to recycle then it's gonna have, you know a cost associated. 00:41:43.250 --> 00:41:52.880 But if eventually we get to everything as a net that revenue then and and if the revenue covers costs, that's the other factor, right? 00:41:52.890 --> 00:42:07.610 Like so, we may get to that point, I think that's everybody's aspirational goal for a program is that and at one point for materials we, you know, they were covering costs and municipalities were making money on recycling, right? 00:42:07.620 --> 00:42:10.350 That's why we're in the problem that we're in is that that stopped happening. 00:42:10.360 --> 00:42:30.620 So if we get to every material that's in packaging commerce at a net positive that goes above the cost of municipalities, one would argue you know, what are we doing, you know, but I I doubt I see this law sun setting, to be blunt. 00:42:31.340 --> 00:42:38.690 Umm, so the producer fees need to be reflective of that revenue. 00:42:38.740 --> 00:42:44.420 So net cost would be I think what we could agree on if if revenue is included. 00:42:45.380 --> 00:42:45.720 Gotcha. 00:42:45.730 --> 00:42:46.330 Alright, thank you. 00:42:48.390 --> 00:42:50.660 Can I can I can we need to follow up here. 00:42:50.830 --> 00:42:51.090 So. 00:42:52.230 --> 00:42:52.960 So that means. 00:42:52.970 --> 00:42:55.800 So if we're talking, so let's talk about aluminum for a second. 00:42:56.170 --> 00:43:12.190 Just can I did some like super rough numbers and if it looks like aluminum for the the numbers we use is gonna be a that money maker for the municipal, the municipality that we used in that case. 00:43:12.810 --> 00:43:16.270 And do you feel like that? 00:43:17.510 --> 00:43:25.190 Are you suggesting that that money be used to offset on administrative fee for someone who produces aluminum or just that? 00:43:27.330 --> 00:43:28.210 Is that what you're suggesting? 00:43:29.370 --> 00:43:31.440 I I think that's possible right? 00:43:31.450 --> 00:43:32.640 Cause cause. 00:43:32.710 --> 00:43:34.230 Let's say you're only an aluminum. 00:43:34.240 --> 00:43:34.940 That's all you. 00:43:35.190 --> 00:43:41.850 That's all you're packaging material it is, and there's existing infrastructure. 00:43:41.860 --> 00:43:42.800 You know you're not. 00:43:43.020 --> 00:43:44.960 There's no special infrastructure now. 00:43:45.390 --> 00:44:02.340 The infrastructure budget exists outside of direct municipal reimbursements, so there's probably some cost there, but for the so right, when they look at Hackman's can or Hackman's sodas and I'm only in aluminum and aluminum across the state or across the program as a net positive. 00:44:03.600 --> 00:44:07.340 You know what else does that money get used for it, but administrative cost? 00:44:09.220 --> 00:44:09.480 Right. 00:44:08.910 --> 00:44:09.670 Yeah. 00:44:09.710 --> 00:44:09.910 OK. 00:44:12.170 --> 00:44:12.440 Thank you. 00:44:18.380 --> 00:44:18.790 I don't know. 00:44:18.800 --> 00:44:19.870 Tony's hand is still at work. 00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:21.000 Or no, it doesn't. 00:44:21.890 --> 00:44:23.470 You can put Tony send down. 00:44:23.480 --> 00:44:26.810 Ohh OK Dave Westerhof has his hand up. 00:44:26.820 --> 00:44:28.450 I'm gonna make him a presenter. 00:44:45.790 --> 00:44:46.720 Nope, sorry. 00:44:47.270 --> 00:44:47.780 Can you hear me? 00:44:48.400 --> 00:44:49.420 Yes, we can. 00:44:49.520 --> 00:45:00.050 So so if Aluminums net positive and is being recycled, but it's only being recycled at 40%, shouldn't you know or or some low number? 00:45:00.060 --> 00:45:08.270 Shouldn't cost go to improve aluminum recycling rates to a certain target? 00:45:11.420 --> 00:45:14.920 Intentionally, but that's not a municipal cost that's being reimbursed though, right? 00:45:15.340 --> 00:45:44.050 And it's probably an SO education administration, maybe it's an infrastructure cost if if the SO is, it's funding infrastructure, but it's not a because the background document talks a lot about the producer payments being reflective of municipal costs for that material because they're not because let's say 70% of aluminum is recycled, 30% is not. 00:45:44.060 --> 00:45:45.410 That's a consumer choice, right? 00:45:45.420 --> 00:45:58.400 That the consumer chose to no one is probably not the best you, because we've got the bottle Bill, but let's assume I'm not making sodas, so I'm I'm making Andy's jams and jellies in aluminum cans, right? 00:45:59.490 --> 00:45:59.610 But. 00:45:58.490 --> 00:46:04.550 But the consumer is choosing to put that aluminum can in their trash. 00:46:05.640 --> 00:46:07.440 That's, that's that disconnect, right. 00:46:08.240 --> 00:46:31.850 So again, if if the material is a net 0 cost and in generating revenue for that municipality, the fees on that producer for that packaging type should only be reflective of the administrative costs, the infrastructure costs for the overall program that's relevant to you know that producer. 00:46:31.910 --> 00:46:36.080 So Hackman's jams and jellies is is only being charged. 00:46:43.840 --> 00:46:44.140 Right. 00:46:36.090 --> 00:46:46.410 I'm not being charged for municipal cost because municipals' governments are making money off of my packaging material that cover and go beyond their cost. 00:46:46.420 --> 00:46:53.940 So that money, yes, could go for an education campaign that says, hey, don't throw your can away. 00:46:54.450 --> 00:47:10.950 Like you know, that could be a cost that's relevant, you know, here or or if there's a, you know, drone that flies around, you know, in the landfill that picks up aluminum, you know, in the future. 00:47:11.750 --> 00:47:16.320 UM, then, then perhaps some of my funding could do. 00:47:16.330 --> 00:47:19.920 Could could fund, you know, some of Hackman's jams and Jelly cans? 00:47:19.930 --> 00:47:32.970 Fees could fund that special infrastructure, but unless the municipality is doing that and and then they're not at a net, uh, then it's not a net positive right for that material. 00:47:32.980 --> 00:47:55.050 If every municipality is suddenly having to invest or wants to invest in drones to pick the aluminum cans out of the trash, umm, so there's a yes there, but that it it may not be a municipal reimbursement cost, which is how just the background documents seem to think about the producer fees as being solely or not solely. 00:47:55.060 --> 00:48:11.290 I know you guys are not thinking solely, but you know tie. A lot to uh the cost for that that material at the municipal level where there there. There may come a point where you know a particular material is doing so. 00:48:11.300 --> 00:48:18.300 Well, that that really you're only covering administrative costs for the for the SO and for the department? 00:48:24.080 --> 00:48:24.230 OK. 00:48:24.550 --> 00:48:24.860 Thank you. 00:48:27.460 --> 00:48:28.070 Thank you guys. 00:48:31.190 --> 00:48:37.900 OK, we don't have any more follow up questions and house doesn't seem like we have any more online either. 00:48:38.010 --> 00:48:39.020 So thank you, Andy. 00:48:39.450 --> 00:48:39.630 Yeah. 00:48:39.640 --> 00:48:41.590 We're gonna move to the next comment. 00:48:41.600 --> 00:48:42.130 Share. 00:48:42.270 --> 00:48:42.660 Great. 00:48:42.670 --> 00:48:43.060 Thanks Andy. 00:48:45.790 --> 00:48:47.560 Which can really be anybody. 00:48:48.050 --> 00:48:53.260 Wait, doing from the audience, we only have one in house. 00:48:53.760 --> 00:48:56.470 We can actually, Susan Bush have their hand up. 00:48:56.480 --> 00:48:59.190 So, OK, we'll go to Susan. 00:48:59.400 --> 00:49:00.810 I'm gonna make you a presenter. 00:49:12.180 --> 00:49:14.860 Uh, we can't hear you on you. 00:49:16.920 --> 00:49:17.200 OK. 00:49:16.960 --> 00:49:17.340 Hi there. 00:49:19.220 --> 00:49:21.570 Thank you all for the opportunity to speak. 00:49:21.580 --> 00:49:30.890 I'm Susan Bush and I'm the partners at Circular Matters and working for the Circular Action Alliance. 00:49:31.910 --> 00:49:35.890 So excited to be stopping, sending them to the state of Maine. 00:49:36.650 --> 00:49:38.420 So Andy, I had a. 00:49:37.910 --> 00:49:40.040 Sorry, Susan, could you speak a little more loudly? 00:49:45.000 --> 00:49:45.690 That's better. 00:49:41.720 --> 00:49:47.810 See if I can up my volume here is that does that help? OK. 00:49:45.700 --> 00:49:48.090 Thank you. Yes. 00:49:50.240 --> 00:49:51.050 Sorry about that. 00:49:51.320 --> 00:49:52.500 So Andy, I did. 00:49:52.620 --> 00:49:55.910 I did agree with really I think everything that Andy had to say. 00:49:57.350 --> 00:50:06.320 Excellent thoughts and I would I would like to add that there is a guidance document out there for producers and Ontario that's been developed. 00:50:07.170 --> 00:50:15.520 I think it's on the Stewardship Ontario website, which leads producers through methods to estimate the quantity sold in Ontario, for example. 00:50:16.000 --> 00:50:19.020 And so, but basically, Andy's right. 00:50:19.070 --> 00:50:27.300 Maine is a tough state to know your exact quantities sold into the state, and maybe through, you know, attaching. 00:50:27.350 --> 00:50:30.060 You know, there may be some. 00:50:31.150 --> 00:50:35.020 I wonderful technologies that are evolved to help with that. 00:50:35.110 --> 00:50:41.460 We could attach more data to skews, for example to allow for better, better data over time, but it will take time. 00:50:41.670 --> 00:50:51.540 So I agree that there should be some estimation allowed, but I also don't think that that estimation needs to be laid out in the rules. 00:50:51.840 --> 00:51:03.400 I think that the stewardship organization can develop that and work with each producer to ensure that what they're using for an estimation methodology is acceptable. 00:51:04.830 --> 00:51:05.300 Umm. 00:51:05.390 --> 00:51:17.460 And you know, beyond that there are many questions in your document that sort of set that sort of alluded to very specific rate questions for example. 00:51:17.990 --> 00:51:26.410 And in general, I think those those specific should also be left up to the stewardship organization. 00:51:27.240 --> 00:51:27.650 Umm. 00:51:27.780 --> 00:51:29.770 Eco modulation and Andy got it. 00:51:29.780 --> 00:51:41.850 There's a bit too and and I I think umm, the other speaker also did Tony may have mentioned this that it's it's gonna take some time for producers to really get a good handle on their data. 00:51:43.190 --> 00:51:44.960 So maybe that was Sarah who said that. 00:51:45.030 --> 00:52:09.340 But at any rate, the eco modulation, I think incentives and disincentives could be should be implemented after a better handle is had on all of the data and the program costs because it's kind of going to amplify, I think inequities to establish eco modulation incentives and disincentives before that as well known. 00:52:11.090 --> 00:52:11.470 Umm. 00:52:12.590 --> 00:52:16.580 In some cases that's been done like two or four years down the line. 00:52:16.590 --> 00:52:23.420 For example, when when that is suggested that the these sort of data is not leveled out. 00:52:25.530 --> 00:52:32.790 Umm, one question was asked too in the document, should one package and act attribute be weighed more heavily than another? 00:52:33.360 --> 00:52:53.470 And I think again that that should be stuffed up to the SO to figure out, you know the I think the Maine model is to say, OK, main, what are your goals for this program and lay out those goals in the RFP and then let the stewardship organization figure out how to best achieve those goals. 00:52:53.580 --> 00:52:58.140 I think that's sort of just the the foundational sort of thinking. 00:53:00.560 --> 00:53:05.820 And I agree that the costs should be reimbursed. 00:53:06.430 --> 00:53:07.760 They should be the net costs. 00:53:07.770 --> 00:53:08.090 What? 00:53:08.100 --> 00:53:10.460 You didn't say we're discussing totally agreement there. 00:53:11.130 --> 00:53:12.130 That's pretty standard. 00:53:14.390 --> 00:53:14.840 Umm. 00:53:14.990 --> 00:53:19.880 And I think I I looked at your background document on reimbursements to municipalities. 00:53:19.890 --> 00:53:33.570 And so it does appear that disposal costs are not covered in the municipal reimbursement costs, but I'm understanding right transportation to and collection with the package and type that is ultimately disposed is reimbursable. 00:53:34.280 --> 00:53:41.410 I think I think ideally for packaging it's not readily recyclable. 00:53:41.840 --> 00:53:49.800 The fees would be used to help develop infrastructure, to recycle that material type might be innovation, might be infrastructure for example. 00:53:52.110 --> 00:53:57.520 Ah, and I think that was the Maine points I wanted to. 00:53:57.530 --> 00:54:01.990 I wanted to make here today OK, this makes sense. 00:54:07.720 --> 00:54:08.470 I have a question. 00:54:08.480 --> 00:54:09.780 Susan, this is Eleana Bertocci from Maine DEP. 00:54:09.850 --> 00:54:16.790 You said you think that additional data will help with the eco modulation. 00:54:16.800 --> 00:54:24.430 So, for instance, one of the requirements and statute is that toxicity be part of eco modulation. 00:54:24.440 --> 00:54:33.270 So you're saying that right now the producers might not know if they're packaging has whatever toxic component. 00:54:33.280 --> 00:54:33.960 I mean, I guess. 00:54:36.350 --> 00:54:43.710 Some of the ones that are called out in the in the in the statutes that that are referenced are, say PFAs, phalates. 00:54:43.720 --> 00:54:52.170 Producers might not know that that those chemicals are present in their packaging at this point. 00:54:52.180 --> 00:54:54.530 Is that what you're saying for instance? 00:54:54.870 --> 00:54:55.050 Yeah. 00:54:55.060 --> 00:55:15.400 Or they don't know the portion of their packaging, the quantity of packaging, you know, sold in Maine that has that toxic toxicity, toxic components and that I think there needs to be some clarity around is that just the portion that's in that deck with the food is that the entire package does that pertain to components as well. 00:55:17.390 --> 00:55:19.470 OK, so they might be aware of the. 00:55:20.120 --> 00:55:26.790 sounds like they're they're likely aware of the makeup of their individual packages. 00:55:26.800 --> 00:55:29.540 It's more an issue of which packages are going to Maine. 00:55:31.800 --> 00:55:32.020 In my. 00:55:31.570 --> 00:55:32.220 I think so. 00:55:32.690 --> 00:55:33.060 I think so. 00:55:34.420 --> 00:55:37.210 I mean, I maybe small producers don't have any idea. 00:55:37.220 --> 00:55:37.730 I don't know. 00:55:37.780 --> 00:55:41.940 I I really can't speak for all producers, so I think the large producers have an idea. 00:55:44.290 --> 00:55:44.610 Thank you. 00:55:49.560 --> 00:55:54.210 A questions for Susan from the Internet world. 00:56:00.610 --> 00:56:01.140 No, no. 00:56:01.150 --> 00:56:01.700 From here. 00:56:01.770 --> 00:56:02.360 OK. 00:56:02.510 --> 00:56:03.160 Well, so then. 00:56:03.170 --> 00:56:04.020 Oh wait. 00:56:04.030 --> 00:56:07.560 Actually, Peter here Bierbaum has a question. 00:56:07.570 --> 00:56:07.850 Hold on. 00:56:22.410 --> 00:56:22.770 You. 00:56:21.790 --> 00:56:25.870 Susan, thank uh, thank you for your input. 00:56:26.470 --> 00:56:29.980 You've mentioned a guidance document for producers in Ontario. 00:56:30.710 --> 00:56:30.890 Umm. 00:56:31.410 --> 00:56:51.480 What I was curious is with producers, is it basically an obligation to use best available information and does that interior guidance document follow that in terms of recommendations on how to go about getting that information? 00:56:52.930 --> 00:57:00.070 Does it have published for example default datas Canada Wide or Ontario wide? 00:57:01.600 --> 00:57:06.970 Alright, it's it's kind of a how to it. 00:57:06.980 --> 00:57:09.080 It gives steps and options. 00:57:10.700 --> 00:57:11.130 I could. 00:57:11.140 --> 00:57:14.470 I'd be happy to share that with everybody. 00:57:14.480 --> 00:57:16.040 It's a it's a lengthy document. 00:57:16.050 --> 00:57:19.950 It's 300 pages and there's lots of like links and so on. 00:57:21.000 --> 00:57:21.250 Umm. 00:57:20.320 --> 00:57:24.100 So I I think calling it best practices would be appropriate. 00:57:26.350 --> 00:57:27.000 Thank you. 00:57:27.050 --> 00:57:27.830 That would be great. 00:57:37.250 --> 00:57:42.460 Any other questions from the Internet? 00:57:48.010 --> 00:57:48.760 OK. 00:57:48.870 --> 00:57:50.000 Well, Susan, thank you. 00:57:50.390 --> 00:57:51.110 Thank you, Susan. 00:57:51.100 --> 00:57:51.470 Yeah. 00:57:51.480 --> 00:57:51.740 Welcome. 00:57:52.410 --> 00:57:52.810 Thank you. 00:57:54.090 --> 00:58:03.880 The chat is disabled, so I'm not entirely sure how you could share the document at this time and we can put it as a comment on our with the other comments. 00:58:03.890 --> 00:58:04.380 Perfect. 00:58:04.430 --> 00:58:04.820 OK. 00:58:04.830 --> 00:58:14.710 So Susan, we have an email address that you could send that document to and then we can make sure that it's posted in the comments section of our website. 00:58:16.910 --> 00:58:17.140 Right. 00:58:18.650 --> 00:58:23.380 I can send that off to you now, or I can email it to you later. 00:58:23.450 --> 00:58:24.170 Whatever you prefer. 00:58:24.910 --> 00:58:26.830 And if you don't mind emailing it to me, that be fantastic. 00:58:27.080 --> 00:58:27.840 OK, cool. 00:58:27.750 --> 00:58:28.090 Thank you. 00:58:37.840 --> 00:58:38.270 OK. 00:58:38.280 --> 00:58:50.060 So yeah, we can keep going along this if you'd like to share, you can put a hand up if you're online and we can give you the floor. Umm. 00:58:54.550 --> 00:58:55.950 Whenever are you gonna say anything? 00:58:55.960 --> 00:58:57.780 Christine, I'm not prepared for that. 00:58:59.970 --> 00:59:00.750 And what's up? 00:59:00.760 --> 00:59:03.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:59:03.430 --> 00:59:06.000 Alright, Curtis can go. 00:59:06.050 --> 00:59:06.580 OK. OK. 00:59:10.360 --> 00:59:11.020 For I just need. 00:59:11.030 --> 00:59:12.410 Thank you, presenter. 00:59:12.500 --> 00:59:13.290 I just sit right here. 00:59:13.400 --> 00:59:14.400 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:59:17.450 --> 00:59:18.990 We really outdid ourselves. 00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:22.570 First time gonna keep because you see the translator. 00:59:22.090 --> 00:59:22.670 Hi there everybody. 00:59:23.550 --> 00:59:24.020 Hi, Curtis. 00:59:25.270 --> 00:59:25.860 Can you hear me OK? 00:59:26.670 --> 00:59:27.370 Yes, we can. 00:59:27.380 --> 00:59:27.710 Thank you. 00:59:28.320 --> 00:59:29.560 OK, by one SEC. 00:59:31.660 --> 00:59:32.130 All right. 00:59:33.040 --> 00:59:38.220 I'll be really brief because I think Andy did here on head on some of the points I was going to mention. 00:59:38.660 --> 00:59:39.570 First of all, I'm Curtis. 00:59:39.580 --> 00:59:41.950 Picard, with the Retail Association of Maine. 00:59:42.320 --> 01:00:03.050 So I think the one point I wanted to raise from the background information is it mentions again the reporting of UPC codes and I recall one of the things we tried to highlight really strongly during the public hearing process on this issue is the sheer number of UPC codes that are out there. 01:00:03.300 --> 01:00:12.590 We're literally talking hundreds of 1,000,000 and we know that DP and the SO is gonna be really challenged to manage these. 01:00:12.600 --> 01:00:20.570 It's going to be difficult for producers to provide them accurately and timely to give you an example. 01:00:20.680 --> 01:00:37.800 There was recently a 15 cent pesticide fee applied to pesticide products sold in Maine that, thankfully, was repealed because one of the issues was it was very difficult to determine which products were considered pesticides or not. 01:00:38.680 --> 01:00:50.340 The Board of Pesticide Control maintains a list of about 12,000 different pesticides, but actually tracking the products proved to be a lot more problematic than anybody envisioned. 01:00:50.710 --> 01:00:54.440 So that's just one subset of products that happens to come and packaging. 01:00:54.650 --> 01:00:56.800 And now we're talking about all products. 01:00:57.730 --> 01:01:00.780 So I just wanted to highlight that I don't necessarily have a solution. 01:01:01.510 --> 01:01:06.080 We just know this is gonna be a huge challenge for everybody involved. 01:01:06.090 --> 01:01:17.480 We think it's going to be impossible to maintain a list of products by UPC code that are complying with this law and maintaining a list of products by UPC codes that are not complying with this law. 01:01:17.870 --> 01:01:20.840 It's going to be impossible for retail or be able to track those. 01:01:21.280 --> 01:01:21.830 Look at them. 01:01:21.840 --> 01:01:24.250 Determine which products are not compliant. 01:01:24.260 --> 01:01:30.740 So just wanted to continue to flag that because it did something that's gonna need to be addressed in some way, shape or form. 01:01:36.670 --> 01:01:37.090 Yep. 01:01:37.880 --> 01:01:38.540 Thanks, Curtis. 01:01:38.550 --> 01:01:40.020 That's the extent of your comments. 01:01:40.960 --> 01:01:44.690 Yeah, for now, we'll submit some written comments by the the next meeting. 01:01:44.700 --> 01:01:49.390 It's always helpful to listen to other people's input into these meetings. 01:01:49.760 --> 01:01:51.710 We found that that's been a more productive way to go. 01:01:52.970 --> 01:01:53.640 That's fine. 01:01:53.650 --> 01:01:57.700 We're accepting comments on an ongoing basis, so thank you. 01:01:57.770 --> 01:01:59.360 We do have some follow up questions. 01:01:59.370 --> 01:01:59.660 I do. 01:01:59.670 --> 01:02:03.650 I I just sorry if I missed your point here. 01:02:11.540 --> 01:02:11.900 Correct. 01:02:04.100 --> 01:02:13.060 It's gonna be impossible to keep a list of registered products by UPC code and can you tell you that a little bit? 01:02:14.340 --> 01:02:15.070 Yeah, literally. 01:02:15.080 --> 01:02:20.720 There's gonna be 160 million different UPC codes out there. 01:02:22.920 --> 01:02:23.600 You know, I was. 01:02:23.610 --> 01:02:25.210 I was digging around for it this morning. 01:02:25.220 --> 01:02:26.190 I couldn't find it. 01:02:26.520 --> 01:02:31.310 I know at the federal level there was an effort to list by UPC codes. 01:02:31.320 --> 01:02:38.950 All the tobacco products that are sold and it was hundreds and hundreds of pages just for tobacco products. 01:02:39.260 --> 01:02:44.370 So I just want to highlight the tracking things by UPC code may sound logical. 01:02:45.220 --> 01:02:48.010 It's going to be a lot more challenging than you realize. 01:02:48.380 --> 01:02:54.390 The other thing I would emphasize is that products are constantly coming and going from the marketplace. 01:02:54.990 --> 01:03:05.040 That was one of the things we learned with the pesticide fee that there could be a new scent of bleach, for example, that came on the market that would be replacing another one. 01:03:05.050 --> 01:03:10.590 So it would have a completely separate UPC code then lemon scented bleach for example. 01:03:11.350 --> 01:03:18.010 So these were just some of the challenges that we saw in that area and that was part of the reason that that fee was ultimately repealed. 01:03:22.040 --> 01:03:22.690 Thank you. 01:03:22.750 --> 01:03:24.330 Thank you, Andy. 01:03:24.340 --> 01:03:26.780 Has his hand up and now I'm going to make you a presenter. 01:03:31.850 --> 01:03:32.040 You. 01:03:35.070 --> 01:03:35.660 Is it real? 01:03:35.670 --> 01:03:36.450 Yeah, that's real. 01:03:38.590 --> 01:03:40.710 And you I I handy. 01:03:42.150 --> 01:03:42.260 Hey. 01:03:40.760 --> 01:03:46.940 Any cars so there there will be more than just a I totally agree with what Curtis says. 01:03:47.310 --> 01:03:50.680 His comment was around the UPC code and I'll say isn't it. 01:03:50.690 --> 01:03:57.460 So after I make the statement, but I would agree and around UPC code. 01:03:57.470 --> 01:04:00.000 I know we highlighted it during the legislative process. 01:04:00.010 --> 01:04:12.700 I know it's in the statute, but as it can relate to the regulations in deference here around estimates, UPC codes can change week to week on a product. 01:04:13.400 --> 01:04:34.550 Uh, so whatever data is submitted to the SO with a full list of UPC codes is immediately going to be dated a week later as products are introduced, go out of the market, it is there is that much churn in the UPC code space. 01:04:35.470 --> 01:04:36.560 Isn't that so Curtis? 01:04:37.230 --> 01:04:37.900 That is correct. 01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:40.100 Just wait. 01:04:46.390 --> 01:04:48.330 Yeah, because because it. 01:04:46.720 --> 01:04:48.520 My my I let mean. 01:04:40.110 --> 01:04:49.210 Are you saying pumpkin spice bleach might have one UPC code today in a different one in a month or you on in a month? 01:04:51.390 --> 01:05:00.190 Especially pumpkin spice though, though there are members of my my immediate family that try to keep pumping spice in our house, way beyond its expiration date. 01:05:02.430 --> 01:05:10.800 That uh, that, that and and Old Bay goldfish I am sitting on a stock from last year of Old Bay goldfish. 01:05:09.940 --> 01:05:10.940 The look. 01:05:11.230 --> 01:05:14.240 That is no longer carried in enough of the Hannaford stores. 01:05:14.500 --> 01:05:14.640 You. 01:05:14.670 --> 01:05:16.870 Just saying Curtis so. 01:05:19.310 --> 01:05:19.540 Who? 01:05:20.230 --> 01:05:21.990 Ohh God thank you. 01:05:21.530 --> 01:05:23.800 But yeah, that that is that is correct. 01:05:24.350 --> 01:05:29.360 You know, products are constantly added to the marketplace or taken off and it's not just a different scent. 01:05:29.370 --> 01:05:31.690 For example, it could just be a different size container. 01:05:32.360 --> 01:05:40.350 Umm, you know, you've seen and actually a good example of that more recently has been with the inflation costs. 01:05:40.360 --> 01:05:43.130 You've seen packaging sizes decrease. 01:05:43.140 --> 01:05:47.510 For example, you know we always that's example I have is ice cream. 01:05:47.880 --> 01:05:50.120 We always used to buy ice cream and half gallons. 01:05:50.130 --> 01:05:57.050 We'll know those half gallons are a lot smaller and they do that to keep the price point more manageable with customer expectations. 01:05:57.200 --> 01:05:59.550 So we've seen a lot of that over the last year. 01:05:59.560 --> 01:06:10.440 Plus, with inflation being what it is that you're seeing, packaging sizes decrease, you know what used to be a 12 ounce bottle might be 11.2 ounces now or something like that. 01:06:10.910 --> 01:06:13.710 So all those changes require different UPC code. 01:06:14.900 --> 01:06:15.290 It's and. 01:06:15.300 --> 01:06:21.250 So I'm gonna risk another a this is impossible answer, but so that. 01:06:21.260 --> 01:06:36.280 So if it's a different package, wouldn't wouldn't theoretically, we want to be knowing that that's a different package now being being sent into Maine and the producer should be playing for a smaller package instead of the bigger package. 01:06:37.210 --> 01:06:38.220 Ohh absolutely. 01:06:38.290 --> 01:06:44.930 I'm just saying it's gonna be a lot more difficult than you realize and try to manage it because you're talking about hundreds of millions of different products. 01:06:46.200 --> 01:06:59.020 Alright, I think I can offer within the regulatory context here you there's going to be package flow decode throughout the year. 01:07:00.280 --> 01:07:02.420 You know you're gonna get to get. 01:07:02.430 --> 01:07:05.510 This goes also a timing issue that's in the background. 01:07:05.520 --> 01:07:07.610 Document it. 01:07:07.620 --> 01:07:16.170 It's going to need to be a look back period for the previous year, at least initially, because you can't always project that you're going to be in a 5 ounce package. 01:07:16.860 --> 01:07:23.270 You know, for the first six months of the year and for sure you're going to be in a 3 1/2 ounce package. 01:07:23.280 --> 01:07:37.490 The back half of the year, so there's going to need to be flexibility for the SO to true up two years worth of budgets because you're going to be outlaying money in, in reimbursement costs. 01:07:40.040 --> 01:07:45.350 To reflect the previous year from your current year. 01:07:45.360 --> 01:07:50.730 In essence, right like that, there's gonna be the the chicken and the egg thing, which is again, I I take the point. 01:07:50.740 --> 01:07:55.100 Like there needs to be front loaded money to the SO in order to stand the program up. 01:07:55.220 --> 01:08:11.090 I think the the RFP could do that, but in terms if if there were a regulatory requirement created as we move into the regulatory phases, that said every producer, the second you introduce a new UPC code, it needs to be reported to DEP. 01:08:12.530 --> 01:08:13.990 You will never stop receiving. 01:08:15.090 --> 01:08:18.080 You know, hourly new UPC codes. 01:08:18.090 --> 01:08:35.110 If the requirement is structured as such, if the regulatory requirement is structured to say there is flexibility to the SO to collect a range of there, there's also brick codes which are technically part of the UPC code. 01:08:35.180 --> 01:08:36.830 It's what we use in the. 01:08:36.840 --> 01:08:46.220 I believe in the chemicals program, the Children's Chemicals program, where it's part of the UPC code, but reporting is made at the brick level. 01:08:47.170 --> 01:09:02.100 And what a company could do is say I sell potato chips, not I sell ranch potato chips, sour cream potato chips, nuclear hot potato chips and Old Bay Potato chips, which are all different at UPC codes. 01:09:02.110 --> 01:09:13.760 They could say we sell potato chips that are in here's the brick code and it's all for flows from GS1 and their database system. 01:09:14.230 --> 01:09:26.440 And so you can have reporting based at that brick code level, Washington State Department of Ecology and their Children's Chemicals Regulatory program sort of pioneered brick code level reporting. 01:09:26.530 --> 01:09:30.260 Again, it's part of UPC, but it's just it doesn't. 01:09:33.210 --> 01:09:33.480 Right. 01:09:30.270 --> 01:09:37.150 It's like if you think about it long string of numbers, it doesn't include the last 6 numbers, so you know you don't. 01:09:38.340 --> 01:09:39.600 You you're getting the chips. 01:09:40.530 --> 01:10:02.400 You're just not getting all the 12 UPC codes underneath that that then change and you could require reporting at that brick code level and for the so to receive an annual or a quarterly report that has data on that brick code on the types of packaging. 01:10:02.410 --> 01:10:06.980 You're not going to use like different packaging amongst your 12 different flavors of chips. 01:10:07.080 --> 01:10:20.800 Those are going to be the same types of packaging, you know, materials, same sizes, because retailers to Curtis don't wanna have different sizes of ranch versus flaming nuclear hot potato chips. Right. 01:10:21.230 --> 01:10:28.150 So it's going to you're not going to lose material data for fees or for incentives and all of that. 01:10:28.230 --> 01:10:41.040 That so I think there's a way that the regulation could be structured in a flexible nature or reporting to get at categories of products sold within that UPC sense. 01:10:41.050 --> 01:10:52.650 So we're not running afoul of the statute, but not requiring, you know, the the additional 6 numbers that go after the brick code level is my suggestion. 01:10:53.950 --> 01:10:56.220 So sorry, I'm just gonna repeat back. 01:10:56.230 --> 01:10:57.120 Make sure I understood. 01:10:57.530 --> 01:10:58.020 That's OK. 01:10:59.080 --> 01:11:11.530 In March, a producer reports, and they say during calendar year previous I sold 100 bags of potato chips with this brick code. 01:11:13.710 --> 01:11:13.850 Yes. 01:11:15.080 --> 01:11:24.930 If they changed their packaging during the year, they would say during the previous year calendar year I sold 50 bags of potato chips with this brick code and or they could it. 01:11:24.940 --> 01:11:28.170 Maybe it all has the same brick code, but I sold 50 bags that have these. 01:11:28.360 --> 01:11:30.420 They look like this and 50 bags that look like this. 01:11:31.100 --> 01:11:33.400 Yeah, we transitioned midway through the year. 01:11:33.410 --> 01:11:41.390 They provide that data to the SO and says what you know for the first six months of the year we were in multi material flexibles. 01:11:41.400 --> 01:11:43.290 Then we shifted to a paper bag. 01:11:43.880 --> 01:11:47.120 The chips were stale in 3 days, but that's neither here nor there. 01:11:47.130 --> 01:11:53.670 We switched to a paper bag six months of the year in order to to reduce our--. 01:11:53.680 --> 01:11:54.830 I'm sorry, I'm not joking. 01:11:55.810 --> 01:11:56.570 Not right. Like. 01:11:54.840 --> 01:11:56.590 But you know the food. 01:11:56.830 --> 01:11:57.580 The fees change. 01:11:58.810 --> 01:11:59.000 Yeah. 01:11:56.580 --> 01:12:00.630 Yes, it's a funny example that thank you. 01:12:00.010 --> 01:12:00.640 Umm. 01:12:01.520 --> 01:12:03.490 So yeah, that that I think could happen. 01:12:03.580 --> 01:12:16.420 Yeah, brick code could still get the data on the material type for that brick code without losing necessary reporting elements that link back to fees and link back to the other elements of the law. 01:12:17.870 --> 01:12:18.540 That's very helpful. 01:12:18.550 --> 01:12:18.840 Thank you. 01:12:21.560 --> 01:12:22.940 Looks like I got a a. 01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:26.880 I'll keep you on Neil's or Andy as a presenter and I have to go to Neil Cowles. e 01:12:37.650 --> 01:12:39.440 Hello, can you hear me? 01:12:39.450 --> 01:12:39.850 Can you see me? 01:12:38.870 --> 01:12:41.130 Hello as we can. 01:12:41.960 --> 01:12:42.400 Great. 01:12:43.620 --> 01:12:50.150 Umm yeah, I guess I wanted to maybe just talk to Curtis and Andy and question about some of the things. 01:12:51.200 --> 01:13:00.870 I think the way that I've been thinking about this, you know, I come from a technology background and you know we do system integration, you know handling lots of data all the time. 01:13:01.740 --> 01:13:13.530 And uh, it seemed like main was the first state, you know, Oregon, Washington or California and Colorado have all path EPR. 01:13:13.640 --> 01:13:18.030 Probably there's gonna be more states that pass this in the future. 01:13:20.630 --> 01:13:27.780 It seemed like we would want to get on a a set of standards for for EPR reporting. 01:13:28.270 --> 01:13:31.140 I don't know that those exist yet. 01:13:31.390 --> 01:13:44.860 I know that they exist in the in the UK I was able to find some some data data standards we could potentially use those as as reference, but I think largely it would. 01:13:45.130 --> 01:13:48.650 It would behoove that the producers to have a standard. 01:13:48.660 --> 01:14:14.010 That way you don't have a specific standard of data transmission for Maine, another one for Colorado, like it's all the same data transmission like you just you just have to essentially generate the same report, but you know for a geographic area, umm that was I didn't know if if you guys had any access to any information about this or if there's anything like this that that you're aware of. 01:14:16.610 --> 01:14:17.390 I I don't know. 01:14:17.400 --> 01:14:21.580 I'm not close enough to the Canadian programs to know how they're sharing data. 01:14:21.590 --> 01:14:25.370 I mean, obviously the four states that we've got on the books are are different. 01:14:25.480 --> 01:14:31.150 All of the statutes are different, and Neil, actually, maybe the type of person that could answer some of that. 01:14:31.500 --> 01:14:47.980 I will say some of it will hinge on the so that selected between the states that and and or California and Oregon allow the potential for multiple SO's or PRO's and those states. 01:14:47.990 --> 01:14:53.580 So some of it depends on on how that shapes up on. 01:14:53.590 --> 01:15:10.020 I mean that's that's the first step in sort of getting the uniformity is having, you know, a uniform entity that's coordinated amongst the data flows, but that that's somewhat in the hands of of the selection of the RFP process here in Maine. 01:15:14.430 --> 01:15:18.530 OK, I'm gonna make Neil a presenter. 01:15:21.830 --> 01:15:22.480 Another Neal. 01:15:23.000 --> 01:15:23.220 Yeah. 01:15:23.230 --> 01:15:24.760 Another Neil. Yeah. 01:15:27.520 --> 01:15:27.870 Hi there. 01:15:27.880 --> 01:15:28.310 Can you hear me? 01:15:29.150 --> 01:15:29.590 Yes, yes. 01:15:30.720 --> 01:15:45.790 And Neil from General Mills and now we've done a lot of work with EPR in the Canadian side, in the Canadian reporting, they don't ask for a skew level data typically in a way because you're managing thousands of companies information. 01:15:45.800 --> 01:16:19.570 They just require the weight to be reported by the different packaging types, plus they'll provide you an opportunity to list all of the different brands, similar to what any kind of mentioned in terms of bricks, just a different brands are captured because the intent is to make sure there isn't a free writer in the system to get skew level data and not have the ability to look back to see whether that product was sold or how much of it is sold becomes increasingly more complex and the extension of that is when we're talking about skews. 01:16:20.390 --> 01:16:26.410 I think the examples provided we're talking about chip bags where it just one material below this queues are multi packages. 01:16:27.110 --> 01:16:32.280 It can have a plastic overlap with a cardboard box cereal liner inside. 01:16:32.330 --> 01:16:51.700 So not only you're now looking for a specific skew, you're looking for the bill of material that goes along and breaks it down by individual packaging component and your data structure just becomes increasingly difficult when you multiply it by the thousands of companies that will become obligated in this space it gets. 01:16:51.760 --> 01:17:00.200 To the point where you're you'll be so overwhelmed with data it will just sit and collect and it will never get used. 01:17:00.210 --> 01:17:05.040 And it just creates a additional administrative burden for everyone to just manage that system. 01:17:05.670 --> 01:17:21.920 You do want the ability to potentially audit certain companies to say if there's a material that doesn't seem to be reported, then the SO has a process to say, give us a list of your SKUs and we'll look at that specific company for specific year. 01:17:21.970 --> 01:17:30.750 So there is no free riding under avoiding systems, but overall you don't want that large data flows because there's also confidential like you have now. 01:17:31.040 --> 01:17:40.200 Sales specific information by brand by skew and it's a no one in the Canadian landscape has entertained that. 01:17:40.360 --> 01:17:44.850 And I would, you know, on the European side, they steer clear from skill level data. 01:17:44.900 --> 01:17:59.100 They want to know the packaging reported and the weights, but they don't want sales by SKU because that's just a whole large data set that knowing we even with our massive database and we're one company, it's a massive data. 01:18:00.070 --> 01:18:03.570 Uh exercise. Thanks. 01:18:06.480 --> 01:18:07.770 And I have a quick question. 01:18:08.110 --> 01:18:08.230 Sure. 01:18:07.860 --> 01:18:21.670 So when you're doing your reporting and getting your full weights of each of the package types, do you work with SKU level data and add it up and just send it in as a consolidated number? 01:18:21.680 --> 01:18:26.790 Or do you do you do something different to get those total weights that you send in? 01:18:27.450 --> 01:18:30.090 So it for the most part, we consolidate all of it. 01:18:30.100 --> 01:18:37.840 So we do manage the steel level data and takes as it takes us a a while to kind of prepare the information. 01:18:38.120 --> 01:18:44.630 The other challenging part we get into is as a brand, we don't have visibility to what's actually sold in Maine. 01:18:44.900 --> 01:18:51.450 We know what we sold to our customer being the retailers who may have a distribution center from there that they distributed out. 01:18:52.360 --> 01:18:57.380 So that's the other next level of complexity that gets layered into this type of reporting. 01:18:58.160 --> 01:19:04.450 Umm is how much it actually sold in the state rather than what was shipped to the state and then transferred out of bed. 01:19:04.980 --> 01:19:24.070 So for us, we make our best estimates for what was sold in the state and then the inside the province to account for our obligated materials, but we consolidate it to just a few categories that's required in you know the EPR programs have the ability to audit any of the brands. 01:19:24.080 --> 01:19:31.010 If they see something seems off or have reason to believe something is missing or hasn't been accurately captured in the system. 01:19:33.390 --> 01:19:38.090 And then you're required to potentially provide that SKU level data if it's if asked for. 01:19:38.570 --> 01:19:39.290 Exactly. 01:19:39.450 --> 01:19:39.860 Exactly. 01:19:39.870 --> 01:19:52.260 So it's not a they have the ability to audit because you always want the ability to make sure there are no free riders or anyone trying to game the system, but it's not an annual exercise where thousands of companies are providing scalable data. 01:19:52.270 --> 01:20:04.300 It may be 30 to 50 companies that get audited where there's actually like a magnitude of an impact that they avoided 5 or 10% of their sales could be a significant cost impact. 01:20:07.340 --> 01:20:07.700 Thank you. 01:20:13.290 --> 01:20:15.240 Any any other questions? 01:20:15.250 --> 01:20:17.340 We seem to have that. 01:20:17.350 --> 01:20:17.900 OK. 01:20:18.290 --> 01:20:21.530 Thank you Curtis, Andy and Neils. 01:20:22.940 --> 01:20:23.260 Thank you. 01:20:28.250 --> 01:20:28.470 Yeah. 01:20:28.480 --> 01:20:36.940 We'll move along if anybody else has a comment that they wanna share, you could put a hand up if you're online and we'll give you the floor. 01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:37.300 Work. 01:21:02.650 --> 01:21:04.270 OK, no, hands went up. No. 01:21:04.280 --> 01:21:04.980 Yeah, they're up. 01:21:05.780 --> 01:21:08.080 OK. Hi. 01:21:12.020 --> 01:21:13.270 You're doing a presentation like. 01:21:13.280 --> 01:21:17.710 This is the table with virtual people, so good afternoon and everybody. 01:21:17.720 --> 01:21:22.090 My name is Sarah Nichols and I'm Sustainable Maine Director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine. 01:21:22.670 --> 01:21:32.530 Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the producer fees for Maine's packaging law and NRCM remains committed to working with the department and stakeholders to ensure the success of this transformative program. 01:21:33.020 --> 01:21:40.230 The shift from an inequitable, inefficient, taxpayer funded system to a fairer and more systematic producer funded approach is the backbone of this law. 01:21:41.190 --> 01:21:52.340 Will submit more detailed written comments prior to answer some of the questions in the background document later, but today we're focusing on ensuring that producers are charged fees only on packaging materials that they sell into our state. 01:21:52.730 --> 01:21:59.110 And that are left to be managed by means municipalities and we have our top ten recommendations for eco modulation. 01:22:00.210 --> 01:22:11.220 So to get started, we believe that producer fee should be assessed on a net material basis, meaning that producers only have an obligation to pay fees on the total weight and volume of material that is managed to remains municipal program. 01:22:12.110 --> 01:22:38.060 So for instance, if a beverage producer sells 10,00 4-packs in Maine that are held together by a pack tech, but they run a program where consumers may return pack techs, that results in a 75% collection rate, whether they're collecting their own or another producers, and they've thereby kept 7500 of those pack techs from the municipal waste recycling programs, then that producer only pays fees on the 2500 that they put out into the world and didn't collect back. 01:22:39.650 --> 01:22:42.940 OK, another example would be the sale of products and reusable packaging. 01:22:43.270 --> 01:22:49.210 Producer should only have to pay fees on reusable packaging if the packaging is managed and paid for by Maine's municipal systems. 01:22:50.050 --> 01:22:55.350 So let's say restaurant reusable take out containers and they collect back half of them to be reused. 01:22:55.820 --> 01:23:02.500 They only pay half of the total fees to the SO for the weight and volume of that material type or types that make up the reusable packaging. 01:23:03.470 --> 01:23:14.480 Furthermore, alternative collection programs, which I believe we're talking about later in August, are designed to take the burden of waste management off of municipalities and allow for the producers to manage their material separately. 01:23:15.740 --> 01:23:17.750 So one example could be for glass packaging. 01:23:17.980 --> 01:23:26.460 This is an ideal material category for an alternative collection program since its removal from municipal systems will save money and increase the quality of all recycled commodities. 01:23:27.040 --> 01:23:33.270 Last packaging producers could report their sales and collection figures and audits could help verify these numbers. 01:23:33.620 --> 01:23:43.840 And then the producers of glass should only have to pay fees to the stewardship organization on the glass that is managed through the municipal system, not the material that they collected in their alternative question program. 01:23:45.490 --> 01:23:52.410 So then for materials left for Maine's municipalities, to manage the basic fees should begin with the actual cost needed to meet the overall anticipated budget. 01:23:53.400 --> 01:24:11.070 Fees should be generally assessed on the cost to collect, process and manage that material by type and volume net with revenue umm and material fee category should be as granular as possible if the materials incur different costs because of their attributes and they should be able to be measured and verified. 01:24:13.230 --> 01:24:20.400 Then producer fee should be adjusted or eco modulated in a way that works to disincentivize the most problematic costly materials and their attributes. 01:24:20.950 --> 01:24:26.130 Generally, the cost of each material should be higher the more the health and environmental cost of that material type. 01:24:27.080 --> 01:24:47.040 So, for instance, plastics might not have a high cost to manage their disposal overall, but this material type may create or contain toxins that harm human health and wildlife throughout their life cycle, and lightweight, flexible plastics may often end up as windblown litter, entangle, recycling equipment, or contaminate the recycling stream and bring down the quality of the recycled commodities. 01:24:47.930 --> 01:25:02.840 Those costs should be reflected by eco modulation to signal to the producer that they may want to switch to a more sustainable package of choice to avoid the full costs of their choices in our system and society, though, here's our top ten overall recommendations regarding eco modulation. 01:25:04.080 --> 01:25:11.930 1st is that all eco modulation should be done in a way that does not threaten the ability of the stewardship organization to collect enough funds to ensure the success of the program. 01:25:12.990 --> 01:25:19.450 So that means the system of financial penalties or those malice payments should be primarily used and any fee reductions or bonuses? 01:25:20.320 --> 01:25:28.000 Umm should be subsequently adjusted such that the total bonuses do not exceed the total malice adjustments to avoid starving the program of needed funds. 01:25:29.660 --> 01:25:38.150 Two, we encourage the department to work with other states to create consistency for producers, and so that the incentives used encourage producers to swap problematic packaging for more. 01:25:38.160 --> 01:25:44.300 Sustainable alternatives are uniform in the United States and therefore have the most potential to be effective at changing packaging design. 01:25:45.950 --> 01:26:12.570 Three, any criteria used for eco modulation should be measurable and verifiable as well as able to be assessed as to the effectiveness of the fees on deterring the use of the less desirable packaging materials or an adjustment for volume should be made such that lightweight but bulky materials that take up just as much room in a truck or in a landfill pay their fair share of landfill space and trucking 5 NRCM endorses the US Plastics Pact. 01:26:12.580 --> 01:26:19.020 Problematic and Unnecessary materials list as a starting point for assessing higher fees for their use. 01:26:19.980 --> 01:26:31.530 In addition to providing financial disincentive to discontinue the use of these problematic and unnecessary materials, we would gain insight into the quantity and source of the materials and be able to compare their presence in Maine year to year. 01:26:33.090 --> 01:26:34.620 But that said, when an echo what? 01:26:34.630 --> 01:26:43.080 Susan Bush had said maybe prudent to take an incremental approach to equal modulation to focus first on increasing reuse and readily recyclable packaging. 01:26:43.230 --> 01:26:52.880 And maybe disincentivizing the most problematic material types, this could reduce complexity and guage effectiveness of the fees before the criteria are expanded upon and scaled up over time. 01:26:54.460 --> 01:27:07.180 Seven, it's important to note that some types of packaging may not have viable substitutes or required to be a certain way by state or federal law, so adding malice, additional malice fees to packaging for these products may not be fair or effective. 01:27:08.100 --> 01:27:11.430 Well, we do not support exempting packaging completely from fee payments. 01:27:11.440 --> 01:27:36.160 We do support exempting certain packaging, malice payments or fee payments above what they would use in absence of the law or requirement if they are able to provide the information needed to make that determination 8 NRCM does not support the incentives for the use of compostable packaging, particularly because our municipal systems do not currently manage that material at scale, and it may have a higher environmental footprint than their reusable or recyclable counterparts. 01:27:37.090 --> 01:27:37.700 Nine. 01:27:38.130 --> 01:28:00.800 While recyclability should impact the fee and the producers of readily recyclable materials should pay fewer fees and NRCM does not believe that the recycling rate should be used to determine fees because the producer is responsible for designing the packaging and not for the recycling or collection of that packaging and Maine's system and 10 what we mostly support the use of the malice fees or penalty payments for unsustainable packaging choices. 01:28:00.810 --> 01:28:19.800 We think that some criteria may be beneficial to have for bonuses or reduced fees if a producer takes the time to calculate and verify that they have used post consumer recycled content or accurate consumer labeling and have had successful efforts to educate consumers to reduce waste and litter and increase recycling on their own, then those would be ideal categories for fee reductions. 01:28:20.780 --> 01:28:24.240 I'll call in that there and thank you for listening, yes. 01:28:31.090 --> 01:28:33.610 So we'll open up the floor for clarifying questions. 01:28:35.780 --> 01:28:36.500 I gotta bunch. 01:28:36.510 --> 01:28:37.090 Ohh, great. 01:28:38.410 --> 01:28:39.800 OK, OK. 01:28:39.810 --> 01:28:49.540 So your first two examples of a reusable package collected by a restaurant or a four pack pop of a beer. 01:28:50.050 --> 01:28:52.030 or container collected. 01:28:52.700 --> 01:29:00.720 You're thinking that those should those collection systems are not alternative collection programs, that there's something different that there should be a two different sets. 01:29:02.200 --> 01:29:07.370 I yes, I think there could be an official alternative collection program for those things. 01:29:07.420 --> 01:29:19.320 Maybe, but if there's not, I still think the producer should have the ability to to track the track what they collected back and kept that the municipal system, without having an approved alternative collection program. 01:29:19.330 --> 01:29:20.020 I think so. 01:29:20.030 --> 01:29:21.750 Because what? 01:29:21.760 --> 01:29:22.110 Like what? 01:29:22.120 --> 01:29:34.910 If there's one producer and Maine that wants to do that, but they have a hard time getting everybody else on board with doing that and putting it all over the state, where else you need, that's going to disincentivize them from having that program. 01:29:34.920 --> 01:29:38.530 If they can't actually reduce their fees from doing it, I don't think that that's fair. 01:29:38.960 --> 01:29:39.370 So. 01:29:39.380 --> 01:29:50.820 So just so they wouldn't be able to potentially do it because maybe there are they have one location and so they're not picking up all over the state, yeah or however you're gonna do that, I'll turn the collection programs. 01:29:54.530 --> 01:29:56.710 OK. Umm. 01:30:02.140 --> 01:30:11.520 When you talked about eco modulation priorities, you talked about full environmental impact. 01:30:11.770 --> 01:30:13.220 You talked about reuse. 01:30:13.230 --> 01:30:16.210 You talked about uniform in the US when you say? 01:30:22.430 --> 01:30:23.440 So so I guess. 01:30:29.660 --> 01:30:31.010 Which are you advocating for? 01:30:31.020 --> 01:30:33.650 Are you advocating that we try to match? 01:30:34.420 --> 01:30:38.620 What else is happening in the US, or are you advocating that we tried to? 01:30:39.940 --> 01:30:42.260 Provide eco modulation for. 01:30:42.310 --> 01:30:45.650 Or, uh, full environmental impacts? 01:30:45.720 --> 01:30:49.290 And if so, is that life cycle analysis is that I? 01:30:49.360 --> 01:31:06.660 I guess I didn't quite understand what you're I think you're trying to say, but similar to what Susan said, I think ideally we want to get to a place where we're really alright getting to a a more granular eco modulation. 01:31:06.670 --> 01:31:15.190 But at first, maybe we try to not have it be as complex and work with the other states to focus on like some low hanging fruit type things that are easily. 01:31:18.750 --> 01:31:26.120 Able to be measured and quantified on and get it that first I guess and not necessarily come out of the gate. 01:31:26.130 --> 01:31:34.380 I don't personally love life cycle analyses, but I'm more mentioned that in in regards to the compostable packaging and then with plastics in particular. 01:31:34.670 --> 01:31:43.810 I think that if we don't think about where some of these materials are being made and the impacts of those, then we're losing a big part of the cost story. 01:31:44.780 --> 01:31:50.740 But I don't necessarily think we need to come out of the gate with that level would be, you know, that makes sense. 01:31:51.150 --> 01:31:54.380 And I got one more question about the alternative collection program. 01:31:54.390 --> 01:32:11.730 So if I am a beer company and I am based in Portland and I I sell beer throughtout state and I collect back uh pieces of my packaging in Portland. 01:32:12.890 --> 01:32:13.240 Umm. 01:32:13.380 --> 01:32:21.710 At my facility and not anywhere else in the state, you're thinking that I should get credit for all of that, even though I'm not providing. 01:32:22.180 --> 01:32:29.310 I'm potentially sending my packaging to Aroostook County and I'm not paying to get that packaging out of Aroostook county. 01:32:29.320 --> 01:32:30.790 I'm paying to collect that packaging in Portland. 01:32:32.750 --> 01:32:38.680 Umm yeah, I think it should be net material that they've put out into the world to be left to municipalities to pay for. 01:32:41.280 --> 01:32:41.660 Thank you. 01:32:45.750 --> 01:32:49.380 He questions from the virtual world. 01:32:58.550 --> 01:32:59.540 So yeah, that was a lot. 01:32:59.770 --> 01:33:00.010 Yeah. 01:33:02.700 --> 01:33:03.670 And get a coffee. 01:33:03.680 --> 01:33:04.250 OK. 01:33:04.400 --> 01:33:05.050 I guess not. 01:33:05.060 --> 01:33:05.590 OK. 01:33:05.660 --> 01:33:06.840 And now others from here. 01:33:07.900 --> 01:33:15.330 And I think at this point, umm, I'll just, yeah, we had a few others registered to share comment. 01:33:15.340 --> 01:33:20.050 I'm not too sure if you all are still planning on sharing comments. 01:33:20.060 --> 01:33:30.510 So, uh, I might end up calling names now unless we have anybody who wants to volunteer to share their comments next. 01:33:35.720 --> 01:33:37.870 Yeah, the comments. 01:33:37.980 --> 01:33:40.300 I'm just asking, maybe we'll just approach it like that. 01:33:40.310 --> 01:33:42.290 Does anybody else have comments? 01:33:51.570 --> 01:33:54.100 No one do it again. 01:33:54.290 --> 01:33:55.210 Yeah. Ohh. 01:34:06.790 --> 01:34:18.100 There are any, any anything we want to pose to the IT it looks like we've we've got all the comments shared that needed to be shared. 01:34:18.110 --> 01:34:21.360 So we might want to wrap up now. 01:34:21.410 --> 01:34:29.000 So last last call, anybody has any comments to share, go ahead, put a hand up and we'll give you the floor. 01:34:29.290 --> 01:34:49.920 If not, uh, we're ongoing with the acceptance of written comments to the email address mainepackagingEPR@maine.gov and we will publicize all the comments we receive through our programs website. 01:34:50.370 --> 01:34:55.660 Our next meeting is July 25th, same time, same place and. 01:34:59.340 --> 01:35:02.150 That's that's all the comments I have to share. 01:35:02.160 --> 01:35:03.940 Are there any else? 01:35:08.860 --> 01:35:09.910 90 minutes. 01:35:10.200 --> 01:35:11.010 OK. 01:35:11.100 --> 01:35:12.290 Well, wow. 01:35:12.300 --> 01:35:12.810 OK. 01:35:12.920 --> 01:35:14.330 We're all OK. 01:35:14.340 --> 01:35:15.100 Thank you everyone. 01:35:15.110 --> 01:35:15.620 Thank you. 01:35:18.960 --> 01:35:23.270 It's kind of well we what do we have some recording first? 01:35:23.310 --> 01:35:26.150 Ohh that's really bad. 01:35:29.420 --> 01:35:29.890 Wait, did you? 01:35:29.900 --> 01:35:30.080 Never. 01:35:31.980 --> 01:35:32.260 Always. 01:35:33.140 --> 01:35:34.430 You don't do that.